1514892 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2006 as a student and remained unlawfully after his visa ceased in 2008. He claimed to fear persecution in China due to his practice of Yiguan Dao, which he stated is prohibited and considered an "evil cult" by the Chinese government, leading to persecution of its followers. The applicant also expressed fear of being unable to survive in China due to a lack of family and social ties there.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included determining the applicant's credibility, assessing the immediacy, gravity, and credibility of his claims of persecution, and evaluating whether he faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to China. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's stated fear of persecution based on his religious practice and his assertion of vulnerability upon return, in light of the delegate's findings that the applicant was not a credible witness and that his application was motivated by factors other than a genuine fear for his safety.

The Tribunal considered Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant Departmental guidelines and country information. The delegate had found the applicant not to be a credible witness due to a lack of evidence of his studies, his awareness of his unlawful status, his failure to contact the Department, and significant illegal income. The delegate also concluded that the applicant's delay in applying for a protection visa indicated he did not genuinely fear for his safety until his detention in 2015. Furthermore, the delegate found the applicant to be capable and resilient, with skills that would enable him to subsist in China, and that there was nothing to suggest he would be denied subsistence for a Convention-related reason. The delegate also determined that the application was motivated by factors other than Convention-related safety concerns.

The Tribunal's decision was to affirm the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.